Community of Practice

This study concerns how local and on-site interactions constitute learners’

participations and learning paths. One major theoretical perspective the present study adopts is from Community of Practice (CoP) (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998).

Departing from viewing learning an internalization of propositional knowledge, Lave and Wenger consider learning a situated process during which learners gain increased access and knowledge to participate in the community. At school, club, work,

institutions and home, communities are formed as long as people engage and learn together through a variety of activities (e.g., problem solving, request for information, seeking experience, reusing assets, discuss development, documentation project, mapping knowledge and identify gaps). Wenger (2005) further describes CoP as

“groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (p.1).

This notion was conceptualized based on analyzing apprenticeship cases of midwives in Yucatan, tailors in Liberia, butchers in U.S. supermarket, and participants in an Alcoholic Anonymous (A.A.) program. When these apprentices participate in situated practices in living communities, the process is termed “legitimate peripheral participation (LPP)” – newcomers start to involve from the peripheral of the activity

toward fuller participation in social construction. The term signifies different levels of participation in the community. According to Wenger (1998),

Peripherality provides an approximation of full participation that gives exposure to actual practice. It can be achieved in various ways, including lessened

intensity, lessened risk, special assistance, lessened cost or error, close

supervision, or lessened production pressures.…No matter how the peripherality of initial participation is achieved, it must engage newcomers and provide as sense of how the community operates. (p.100)

In this view, peripheral participation means that newcomers involve by performing relevant but insignificant tasks at first. More exposures will then help them generate experiences, knowledge about processes of production and thus increasing engagement central to the practices. However, it is important to note that the word ‘peripheral’ doesn’t imply that there is a single core or center to CoP (Prior, 1998, p.36). Both newcomers and old-timers operate on the peripheries from which learning experiences would “send them on trajectories toward full participation in the community” (Johanson, 2001, p. 28). This “decentered view of master-apprentice relations” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 94) basically suggest two key points. First, as Morita (2002, p.41) stated, “there are multiple ways of belonging in a community of practice” and “individuals positions and perspectives with a CoP can change

overtime.” Second, newcomers do not just take on “a particular role at the edge of a larger process”; they involve “performing in several roles – status subordinate, learning practitioner, sole responsible agent in minor parts of the performance, aspiring expert and so forth- each implying a different sort of responsibility, a

different set of role relations, and a different interactive involvement” (Hanks, 1991, p.

23).

Another key aspect of LPP, legitimate participation, emphasizes that newcomers can participate only when they’re granted access and opportunity. Even though

novices are usually offered minor and limited jobs, this legitimacy implies treating he/she as potential members. Lave and Wenger (1991) further elaborate, “newcomers’

legitimate peripherality provides them with more than an “observational lookout post:

it crucially involves participation as a way of learning – of both absorbing and being absorbed in- the ‘culture of practice’” (p.95). While newcomers take places alongside more competent members, they are licensed to involve and witness what constitutes the practice of the community. It is the sanctioned access to “learn to talk” rather than

“learn from talk” that counts as the key to begin participating and learning (Lave &

Wenger, 1991, p.109).

In sum, Lave and Wenger view learning a process of increased access to

participation and perform as master practitioners. At first, the novice takes on more of an observer role rather than a primary participant. Such participation remains in peripheral status. However, it is considered to be key opportunity for socialization.

Experiences and insights from interacting with more experienced and competent members direct novice to gain understandings about the “function of the routine, as well as the resources needed to do the routine” (Ohta, 1999, p.1496, italic in original).

After extended participation, novices are able to transfer to more active roles since they acquire anticipated ways to communicate. Meanwhile, involvement in more social events pushes novices to think about the meanings of the routines and their positions. Finally, the novice develops confidence to utilize sources in immediate surroundings to construct routines in accordance with their individual goals. Through this process, newcomers assemble learning experiences with commitment of time and effort. Also, they may transform their identities with respect to relations with others, with personal roles and positions.

Informed by the framework, to examine learning cannot overlook the paths and modes of participations in immediate surroundings. In the present study, graduate

schools are identified as central in “developing professional identification” (Becker &

Carper, 1956, cited in Casanave, 1992); thus, graduate courses serve to be “an

important entry point for graduate students into a larger academic community such as a disciplinary community” (Morita, 2002). In addition, graduate courses are places where pedagogical purposes are fulfilled through implementing academic tasks. The instructors guide and induct students to ways of processing academic activities. In this sense, classrooms form a specific community of practice while graduate students learn to become competent graduate students. By using courses the staring point, I would then be able to concentrate on local environment where focal students are socialized to the disciplinary practices.

2.3 Language Socialization Theory

Another theoretical perspective that the present study embraces is language socialization theory (Ochs, 1986; 1990, 1993; Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984; Schiefflin, 1990; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986a, 1986b; Watson-Gegeo, 1992). Research taking this sociocultural view on language learning made assumptions that learners gain

membership and expertise through participating in social activities of various contexts (Duff, 2002, 2007; Moore, 2008; Morita & Kobayashi, 2008; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986b). This approach roots in linguistic anthropology, sociology and Vygotskian psychology. Early first language (L1) acquisition studies on child-caregiver

interactions revealed how children were immersed and socialized to acquire linguistic resources to construct, interpret and react to social actions, such as teasing (Eisenberg, 1986; Miller, 1986), calling out and repeating (Watson-Gegeo & Gegeo, 1986), story narrative (Heath, 1986), Japanese communicative style (Clancy, 1986). Based on findings of L1 literacy development, Ochs and Schieffelin (1984; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986a) noticed the importance of language in directing children to possess “social

competence” and to adopt identities and positions defined in parents’ communities.

Hence, they posit

The notion of language socialization is premised on two assumptions about the nature of language, culture, and socialization. First, the process of acquiring language is deeply affected by the process of becoming a competent member of a society, and second, the process of becoming a competent member of society is realized to a large extent through language, by acquiring knowledge of its functions, social distribution, and interpretations in and across socially defined situations. This is largely achieved through participation in exchange of

language in particular social situations. (1990, p. 252)

Two important concepts about language learning are emphasized. First, it is a process of socialization mainly through language. Only by extended involvement in language-mediated activities of target communities could novice learn ways to use language and display membership (Ochs, 1986; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986; Shcieffelin, 1990). In other words, language plays significant role familiarize members with its use in various social interactions. Second, language can not be separated from social contexts, nor its use from culture because these social interactions are recognized as opportunities for language development (Norton & Toohey, 2001). Séror (2008) thus highlighted that “language and its use is socially contingent, and is therefore never neutral, mechanical or uninterested” (p.12).

Accordingly, second language (L2) research informed by language socialization seeks to identify learners’ cognitive progress and its relation with contextual factors (Duff, 2008; Duff, & Hornberger, 2008; Morita & Kobayashi, 2008). In addition, inspired by L1 studies, this framework attends to learning process as not only acquiring discrete set of linguistic structure, but also constructing social and cultural knowledge of context where learning occurs. This process-oriented exploration on language learning departs from traditional SLA studies which overlook effects of contextual and interactional dimensions of language (Firth & Wagner, 1997). Growing

L2 studies thus position literacy events as “socially situated and co-constructed acts, with language serving as a key component (among others) driving learning” (Séror, 2008, p.12) across various educational settings and workplaces. Incongruent effects of socialization were found which either successfully apprenticed learners to perform expected outcomes (Kanagy, 1999) or failed to generate desirable ability to function in the community (Yoshimi, 1999; Atkinson, 2003; Kulick & Shieffelin, 2004). When examining reasons for failed academic performances (Duff, 1995, 1996; Atkinson, 2003; Moore, 1999), findings captured the complexity or even conflict between macro-level factors (cultural, institutional and social) and micro-level (classroom) practices, such as the example of students in Cameroon quit schooling in response to French-only rule at school (Moore, 1999).

Results of above studies have revealed that L2 learners were inducted to

recognize the social constructions as well as to take certain identities. What makes the effects diversely generated is the fact that students are not necessarily assume the role assigned to them. Duff (2007) further suggests that second language socialization need to recognize that learners have agency to negotiate their roles, identities and goals through the socialization process. Although newcomers or novices are generally assisted by more competent members in the group, it is argued that this expert-novice interaction is not a unidirectional transmission. While both novices and more

experienced members participate in social activities, they all “serve as resources for one another in exploring new domain and aiding and challenging one another”

(Rogoff, 1990, p.39). In a similar vein, Jacoby and Ochs (1995) note that social events are “collectively built” and involve bidirectional and dynamic socialization process.

For example, Prior (1994) holds that having the professor and peers response to students’ texts is central for meaningful writing tasks. Due to co-participations, not only novices but old-timers may transform their thinking, understanding and

evaluations (Ochs, 1990).

As such, academic activities are situated social practices. Ways how students deal with tasks and how professors and peers perceive each other’s works foreground negotiation processes other than language competence. To sum up this section and the principles of language socialization framework, followed are the key tenets

summarized in Duff’s (2007) plenary speech:

1. Social interaction contextualized within particular routine activities is a crucial aspect of cultivating communicative competence in one’s first or additional languages and knowledge of the values, practices, identities and status of the target group.

2. Experts or more proficient members of a group play a very important role in socializing novices and implicitly or explicitly teaching them to think, feel, and act in accordance with the values, ideologies, and traditions of the group.

However, novices also ‘teach’ or convey to their more proficient interlocutors what their communicative needs are, and the process of socialization is therefore seen to be bidirectional- or multidirectional if multiple models of expertise co-exist.

3. Language and other semiotic system and tools mediate not only

communication in general but specifically the learning of language and other cultural knowledge.

4. Language leaning and socialization is a lifelong process as we enter new communities of practice in which new ways of acting, communicating, and thinking are required and new codes, registers, genres, or literacies are given priority over others.

5. Additional-langue (e.g. L2) socialization does not necessarily lead to the reproduction of existing L2 culture and discursive practices but may lead to

other outcomes, such as hybrid practices, identities, and values; the incomplete or partial appropriation of the L2 and status within the L2 community; or rejection of target norms and practices. (p.311)

2.4. Studies on oral academic discourse and oral academic Socialization

To date, literature concerning oral academic discourse is in short. A more correct way to say is “we know much less about academic speech than we do about academic writing” (Swales & Burke, 2003, p.1). Though the issue was only partially addressed and understood, some inspiring research still has had great influence on the present study. In the 1990s, studies focusing on spoken genres in English-speaking academic setting mostly targeted to find oral needs and challenges of NNSs (Ferris and Tagg, 1996a, 1996b; Ferris, 1998; Jones, 1999; Kim, 2006; Manson, 1994; Ostler, 1980).

Along with the trend of sociocultural views on learning, increasing researchers

adopted qualitative design to depict how learners undertake tasks and learn (Ho, 2007;

Kobayashi, 2003; Morita, 2000, 2002, 2004; Weissberg, 1993; Zappa-Hollman, 2001, 2007). Meanwhile, corpus-based studies are devoted to identify salient rhetorical and linguistic exemplars in oral academic genres (Simpson & Mendis, 2003). In this section, I will briefly describe what major features constitute oral academic discourse and what current socialization studies reveal about students’ learning.

Starting from the 1990s, early studies attempted to investigate listening and speaking needs of university students from different disciplines. Ferris and Tagg’s (1996a, 1996b) serial studies provided comprehensive survey findings on students and instructors’ perceptions of aural/oral skills in tertiary education. The large scale data collected from instructors in four different institutions provided teachers’ perspectives on various listening and speaking requirements across disciplines. Moreover,

follow-up investigation in 1998 indicated the gap between students’ responses and

professors’ perceptions. Dramatic variety on skills and needs rankings between instructors and students indicated the necessity for language teachers on preparing students for comprehension and participation in lectures.

Much more recently, corpus-based research on different academic genres (i.e.

lecture, conference presentation, dissertation defenses, and peer seminar) began to demonstrate the pattern of language use orally. Empirical analysis based on Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE)¹ of academic speech events

(Simpson & Mendis, 2003; Swales & Burke, 2003; Swales & Malcewsk, 2001;

Mauranen, 2001) achieved in separating the nature of academic talks from academic writing. So far, the preliminary maps of academic talks suggest that it seems position in the middle ground between ordinary conversations and academic prose. Academic speech tolerates informal wordings (e.g., gonna, wanna), vague word like “thing”

(Swales, 2001), frequent use of discourse markers (e.g., okay, so, now), and filled pause. However, certain features of academic writing also appear in spoken discourse.

Both tend to use heavily signposts to signal the structure of spoken text and hedging which is the typical technique to show modesty and uncertainty.

To add more complexity, academic oracy encompasses various sets of speech genres which students need to take part in. One in particular concerns academic lectures. A number of discourse-based analysis (Crawford Camiciottoli, 2004;

Mauranen, 2001; Thompson 1994a, 1994b, 2003; Yong, 1994) all indicated that instructors’ use of metadiscourse markers (e.g. today we’re gonna talk a little bit about) are important signals for students to create “mental map of the overall talk”

(Thompson, 2003, p. 5). To better facilitate L2 students, academic listening materials

1 MICASE consists close to 200 hours of recorded speeches from 152 of speech events (e.g., lectures, colloquia, research group meetings, dissertation defenses, faculty meetings, student study

groups)(Simpson & Mendis, 2003). All the recordings were collected between 1997 and 2001, containing 1.8 million words with full transcriptions.

need to address the feature and try to provide authentic listening input. Apart from lectures, current contributions to the language of spoken form of research include Rowley-Jolivet (2005) who found rhetorical structure (move model) of scientific conference paper is different from that of research article, Hood and Forey’s (2005) study aimed to explore how co-occurrence of language and gestures display

conference presenters’ attitude, Recski (2005) who linked the choices of modal (e.g., will, could, exactly, obviously) with dissertation presenters’ stance, roles and

commitment to proposition, and Aguilar (2004) who addressed certain features of peer seminars other than its mixed features from lecture, written research and conference presentation.

Accompanied with these academic speeches is the use of visual images (e.g.

presentation slides, pictures, tables, and charts). One early study done by Miller (1998) revealed that visuals used in academic texts serve the functions to persuade and argue.

Kress (2000) comments on this increasing occurrence of visual modes in texts by arguing that “it is now impossible to make sense of texts, even of their linguistic parts alone, without having a clear idea of what these other features might be contributing to the meaning of a text” (p. 337). Speakers may use visuals to structure discourse and express logic relations (Rowley-Jolivet, 2002) and to project their identity and

disciplinarity (Tardy, 2005; Liou, 2008). The use of technology, such as PowerPoint slides or overhead projector slides, certainly brings changes to how information is organized. According to Myers’ (2000) findings, effects of utilizing Microsoft

PowerPoint software for lectures are particularly salient on text form (from sequential to more hierarchical), on process of presentation (from continuity to chunks), and on the kind of interaction (from voice to text).

Above reviewed studies described patchy yet valuable rhetorical and linguistic features of oral academic discourse. Their contributions lead to EAP material

development and provide practical guides for NNEs students. However, investigation of individual’s acquisition and socialization paths shifted focus to learning and the learners. To address micro learning dynamics, current second language socialization research drew on Community of Practice perspective to examine how novices and more experienced members engage each other in situated activities. Duff (2007, plenary speech) summarized that this process-oriented perspectives by applying CoP analysis tended to ask following question:

1. How do newcomers to an academic culture learn how to participate successfully in the oral and written discourse (and related practices) associated with that community or practice?

2. How are newcomers explicitly or implicitly induced or socialized into these local discursive practices? What effect do these experiences have on their evolving identities?

3. How does interaction with their peers, instructors, tutors, and others facilitate the process of gaining expertise in those practices and thus full community membership?

4. How do the practices and norms themselves evolve over time and across practitioners, given the cultural and historical context of the local

community of practices? (p.315)

Trying to answer these questions, Duff and her students (Kobayashi, 2003, 2004;

Morita, 2000, 2002, 2004; Zappa-Hollman, 2001, 2007) initiated to investigate oral academic tasks in undergraduate and graduate courses. Morita (2004) focused on six Japanese international students’ negotiation of participation and identity through open-ended discussion in L2 classroom communities. These six cases were found trying to exercise personal agency to resist marginal positions, to take different roles regarding personal perceptions of competence, and to develop strategies for growing

participation in class. Another study also done by Morita in 2000 conducted an 8-month ethnographic study in a TESL graduate program at a Canadian university with a mixture of domestic and international students. The aim was to look at how both NS and NNS students were expected and learned to give successful presentations in two courses. Findings showed that both NS and NNS felt challenging in relation to this class activity. Students applied multiple strategies to negotiate expectations, to communicate stances and take various voices and roles in pre-, during and reviewing stages of OAPs.

Zappa-Hollman (2007) extended former findings of OAPs by comparing this activity across four disciplines. Multiple data sources, including observations, interview, field notes, course outlines, from six non-native graduate students

suggested some salient themes through their engagement. It is noted that challenges faced by the students may be linguistic (e.g., limited fluency, unclear pronunciation), sociocultural (e.g., lack of familiarity with OAPs or rejection of the qualities valued in courses) and psychological (e.g., shyness, fear of public speaking). Non-native

learners used several strategies before and during presentations in order to sound smart, and speak clearly. Zappa-Hollman suggests that guidance from instructors and more experienced peers through peer assessment or systematic reflective practices would benefit novice students.

Moreover, Kobayashi’s (2003) study focused on one certain group and their peer

Moreover, Kobayashi’s (2003) study focused on one certain group and their peer